[WikiEN-l] One reason why Wikipedia is not presently class-room safe

Sun Feb 20 15:18:47 UTC 2005

<apw at ap-woolrich.co.uk> wrote

> John Lee wrote:
>
> As I said, in Europe and Australia, you guys are probably used to
> depictions of lifelike nudity and didn't really notice the image, but
> the  same cannot be said for those of us from America and Asia.
>
> I agree with John it is clearly a cultural problem. Yet it is a
> curious paradox that so much pornography comes from America, the
> nation that got so up-tight last year about exposed breasts in TV.

It's an interesting discussion, but not exactly relevant to Wikipedia.
People come to WP as individuals, not as representatives of cultures.
Importantly, they can expect to have their views individually treated, and
not written off under some blanket assumptions.

> 1) We need to have a policy or policies which preserves Wikipedia'a
> reputation as a vehicle for liberal values, and does not make us
> liable for a concerted attack by bigots, with all that means in
> wasted energy for the management. [Jimbo et al]

I'm alarmed to think that WP is getting dragged into being a 'vehicle'.
NPOV is good enough for me - that kind of vehicle sounds to be off-road.
Anyone equating NPOV with 'liberal' is confused.

> 2) We also need to be able to protect the young and the vulnerable
> adult who ARE upset by images like these, which in my view OUGHT to
> be on WP.

Upset - OK, we should not be trying to upset, and in many cases we should be
trying not to upset.  For example the Indian Ocean tsunami produced many
shocking, upsetting images.  We are not selling a newspaper, and should be
able to cover such a story without exploiting images -  just informing
people.  By the way, I think this kind of example, and the Abu Ghraib
stories, are much more to the point than the darker corners of sexology, of
which no one can possibly expect 'complete coverage'.

I would like to propose some different questions.  The present discussion,
phrased in generalities, is just going round and round.

Q1: What is WP's demographic?

A marketing question, if you like.  We know that the job is to get the
encyclopedia written.  My answer, FWIW, is that it is the Sopranos/Sex in
the City stratum.  (Neither of these are to my taste, by the way.)  That's
our natural station.

Q2: What does Wiki-en do to audit itself?

I would much rather be discussing this.  If there is offensive material, or
hate speech, or various other things on the site, we should have a clue
about it.  With half a million pages due as a landmark in a month or so, it
is no trite matter to claim that we - the community- even are aware of the
worst of it.

WP has, remarkably I think, avoided serious scandals.  Rather than devote
ever more time to reactive topics - the type that concern the
semi-professional offendee (a not-unknown media phenomenon) - I wonder if
there is not a pro-active way.

Charles